Why 58 Representatives Who Voted For Hurricane Katrina Aid Voted Against Aid For Sandyhttp://www.businessinsider.com/why-58-representatives-who-voted-for-hurricane-katrina-aid-voted-against-aid-for-sandy-2013-1/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Fri, 09 Dec 2016 14:13:43 -0500Theodoric Meyerhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50fc272369bedd4b0900000ascooteySun, 20 Jan 2013 12:19:31 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50fc272369bedd4b0900000a
Here's a reform for the program: Raise taxes. You know, cause that's how we pay for stuff.
"The difference is the fiscal state of the country," Jason Klindt, a spokesman for Rep. Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, wrote in an email explaining why Graves voted for both of the Katrina relief bills but against the ones for Hurricane Sandy. "The days of buy now and pay later are over," he added.
Read more: <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/the-58-representatives-who-voted-for-katrina-aid-and-against-sandy-aid/single#republish#ixzz2IXMOXxdV" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.propublica.org/article/the-58-representatives-who-voted-for-katrina-aid-and-against-sandy-aid/single#republish#ixzz2IXMOXxdV</a>
If the "difference is the fiscal state of the country," conservatives are saying socialism is ok as long as the economy is doing well. Conservatism: incoherence is thy name.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50fbb147eab8eafc5f000001mtc73Sun, 20 Jan 2013 03:56:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50fbb147eab8eafc5f000001
You change rules before or after a game. Not in the middle.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50fb1f96ecad043b53000011mtc73Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:35:02 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50fb1f96ecad043b53000011
What changed? Democratic president. Plain and simple obstructionism.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50faf2ce6bb3f7cf6a000010Homer SimpsonSat, 19 Jan 2013 14:23:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50faf2ce6bb3f7cf6a000010
Like a previous commenter I feel terrible for anybody who experiences hard times. Hurricane damage, or any unlucky circumstance is terrible. Neighbors and families should help each other, and I'm sure that's happening. I love the beach and would love to live near the water some day, when I can afford it. Right now, though, I can't afford to help rebuild the beachfront homes of New Jersey, and I can't afford to give extra money towards federally subsidized flood insurance for those who choose to live in waterfront locations. When I live near the water some day, after decades of frugal living, I hope that people in Oklahoma and Idaho don't have to pay increased tax dollars to subsidize my good fortune. People should bear the full costs of their choices.
Ya know, I'd imagine that if the full costs of beachfront living were born by the owners of beachfront real estate- i.e. uninsurable property, no flood insurance, fully rebuilding out of pocket after each catastrophic storm, I'll be that there'd be a lot more undeveloped, pristine beachfront property in the world. That would be nice.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50faf0c8ecad043477000016examination failSat, 19 Jan 2013 14:15:20 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50faf0c8ecad043477000016
On the other hand, the Katrina bill was pork for the southern republican states from one end to the other, yet the Dems allowed it in the name of humanity and getting aid to those who need it. Now that the money will NOT be going to republican states, we get false grousing about "pork".http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50faababecad04dc7a00001fKobusSat, 19 Jan 2013 09:20:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50faababecad04dc7a00001f
My heart goes out to the people at the Jersey Shore and other communities hit hard by Sandy. It also goes out to anyone harmed or had property damaged by acts of nature - of any kind.
As long as Congress is willing to dole out money, injured communities and states should take it. Americans will always reach out to help each other in times of need, but there's a broader issue emerging that seems to be politically incorrect at this time: Who really should pay for this? Should the people who wisely choose to live on higher grounds pay for this?
When I bought my house I made sure it's not in a flood zone and to cover non-flood disasters, I bought insurance. When someone buys a house in harms way and disaster strikes, why should I bail them out through my taxes? Why is the Federal flood insurance underfunded - in effect a subsidy to everyone who chooses to live on the water? Why can't there be Federally-mandated insurance, just like we have for cars? Force insurance companies to write policies, but allow them to charge a price that makes it profitable. Understandably the premiums will be high, but that's the price one should expect to pay if you want property or a business on the water. If it's too expensive to live next to the beach, then move to a safer, less expensive neighborhood. Doesn't that make sense?
If everyone in flood zones, or hurricane zones, or tornado alleys, or whatever high-risk zones are forced to pay risk-equivalent premiums, then folks in North Dakota won't have to keep subsidizing people in areas who choose to keep rebuilding homes, businesses and beaches in high-risk areas.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50faa416eab8eaf92c00000dd edwardsSat, 19 Jan 2013 08:48:06 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50faa416eab8eaf92c00000d
That's because the Dems loaded the bill with their b*llsh*t pork instead of being honest and putting forward a "clean" bill for the aid only. The greedy Dems are the ones who held up the relief package.